Nope, won’t work I’m afraid! There are a number of points in that post I disagree with for reasons I’ve already given in this thread and others. I do think it’s right to identify the “winning is paramount” mentality as likely to lead to dissatisfaction with exploits, but as I’ve said, that’s not what I personally want from BG3, as for me roleplay and finding fun, different ways of doing things are the priorities. I’m not in favour of giving up my flexibility because some players will “misuse” it.
I will continue to think that in
some cases the best way to balance player preferences will be to include options that some players want but others, who dislike them, can ignore. That, of course, only applies when the feature we’re being asked to ignore is something that does have a valid use case, and when the feature only impinges when actively engaged with. And when there’s not a better implementation of a feature that can satisfy both camps. And, of course, I do agree with grysqrl that play testing and providing feedback on potential exploits is important so Larian can make informed decisions about what to leave in, take out or tweak.
Personally, I think the only “terribad” argument would be one that lumped all “exploits” together and suggested either they all need to be removed or all should be ignored. I think it’s far more nuanced than that, and in practice I think so do most if not all other forum members, even if we disagree on the details.
